—__ Calm nator . ‘A Nex-monetary Csi only : 1B Jucical Review won aE RN poe] ee aie . t He yacial Administrative Rey setenv 2 Sn ecenan Cee (©.58:3@) Soe fat ing, Farce Place, 18 Lower Albert eee 5 Fond Cental Hong Fong renee? sacar!” 5 joss — Spee ‘Name and description of proposed| N/A INTHE HIGH COURT OF THE . a “dcr, dection a otber| The Fugilve Otfender and Muted Lage fe (COURT OF HIRST INSTANCE Festaing in repect of which reef | Asitance in Cena! Matis Lepition somght po CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINTRATVELAWUSTNS? 5 oFams (mendes BL 2019 (the Bal) Td RELIEE SOUGHT ‘ADedsation a eurendcto Maes evo Ari 10, ee 1. ADedaaton that tbe Appianés sender fo Macau would cot - TAU LUEN HUNG (BEI) Appian) Frayed 10 Hong Kon Eights Orne (sp. 289) HKBOR: {ore app fr ada ree wer ‘Order 9 rae 3) of he Ral of the High a, A Detarnon hth Bi as presen dof as no ecg ee awed Ge ot authorise surender of person in respect ofan offence commited, or allege ® ‘have been committed, pros to the coming into force af the propored legisation. TAC LRNHUNC IE) Arpt A tee secRETARY FoR JUSTICE Pane Reporte! 1. Adedkon oat ceri scvting mares preceeding in eres coven oe HIGAS a fa peo abject to a peal samender arsngement engages the Toh robin in Articles 25,31 and 29 of th Base Law {he BL” and FICPOR _Aotier 50), 8,9, 120) and for sand co ‘NOTICE OF APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPLY FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW ee ieecative a unbounded dicretion owas suc (0.533) Rules of the High Court (Cap. 44) 32. Toconfer upon the Chie certificate woud, sheen legal provisions presarhng the circumstance # ‘shich this cretion i to be enticed, be compete with enc of Cove sights (or any of em). eee ee “Tote Rept, High Court, Hong Keng, 4. Anexpodie easing ofthe aplication andes Onder 3, raf) of he also he Tame Gemsipion end sddrem of da] TAU LEN HUNG (#1 8), of No. 2 gh Ca (Cap 4h) aves not grant on he POPE, ‘applic Goldsmith Road, frdee’'s Lookout Hong Kong Such thro oer emedy ai or order athe Ct ny provide: nd Cons cbt appatin fx one to pp fx judi eve and eave paste the application for oda review be tothe Applicat tobe ned nt agree * 2(GROUNDS ON WHICH RELIEF 15 SOUGHT (At eaphaen oe sd the Applicant ules there specie) 1._INTROPUCTION AND SUMMARY 1 “Tis apiicaion fr jul review rates to antipated elation proving fox a te exten arongement with estore in relation to which ther is ro existing ‘ecuadion agreement ('¢pecal narcender arrangement): ste the Pogtve Offenders ‘and Motnal Legal Asltance in Carina Matters Legation (Amendmen) Bl 2039 (Cthe Bu), On 26 March 2019 the Che Bxective decided tha he Bl sould be placed Before the Legilatioe Counc (Lag), and the Government has announce te inkection to rush the Bil through LegCo within this legiive term (which coche aly 2018) - “The Aplcant has diet leg ints nthe sujet mat ofthe BL As detail ‘below, he wasted ana convicted insets by « Court in Macs of erin fences (of corupion and money landerng). The Macan Court proceeded withthe tal notwithstanding that the Applicat’ absence was involuntary because of RS Vey seriou nese. The Cour aceptd tat i nwolartaryabeecein those rcustances tras “rt aceasonble”.No pospect fll and fase on factand Iwi aralabie sander Macenese aw (contrary to uaan sights norms, pursuant © wishful of facta law most be provid a fightin sock cumstances). - he eter yy ts gi ies ric ip 5a POOF expen forbdsetentton to any oe part ofthe Pops Repubticcf Ching which Includes the Mailer Taiwan and Macau (he Express Taelason) Accordingly. she oa ine has protected the Applicat frm the prospect of having gerve a Jong zn sentence on he ts of “ea” that marist fled to met nteratioaly trade tarda of aims. He as sete in Hong Kong and esublised fily le herein roance pon the BapetaBetusion. The Bil however seh to semove ht potion in. creomslnce which as developed bekow, themeeles donot mest se standard of Hong Kong costttona lw snd the coms. A. Paragraphs 486 below explain why thee are here exceptional crcumstanst juriying the exec of he Courts power to de on he appicton even hough tht Jegialation atin es nt yet een enacted Ia suumary, de Appin subeits at (Goes diet aarp goertions Tew arin out ofthe a and th xy resolution would serve uefel purpose or engender pret advantage. THe Cours decison on the questions woul serve o faint and nother, the legisative procee: and/or 42. The consequences of the nectment of cata povidone ofthe Bal my Be ennai anc eevee, and vee to substi damage o preuice 5. Aste dhe it pot thes justice ues of or are onto he Bon which She ‘Court rling is sought Broadly summarise they ae feos 5A. The Applicant wae tied an convicted eniely it trate derpte Bie sckoowledged involunlary absence. His removal to Maca would vst [Arles 10 and 110} ofthe HKBOR since Macanes lw fis to gusene tri the promect ffl nd foc elo fact are Iw. The Courisaske © give « Dcaratin to thst (Ground 52, Thecommenlaw views serepugnen retrepectve labs hares asi, nd accordingly lyltion wil not benterprted ar operating setoapectely sheen eas words ors sectmery implication to ta fect Noting inthe Bil stares or implies that the proposed amendments the POO will have _rtropective elec. However, the Legislative Counc Bet prepared by the Secuty Bare a atin othe BI proceeds onthe bai hat the propor ‘amendments othe KO willopeat eropestivy, rating he poten for profound confsion bout wat i beleg mthoraed, The Court is asked‘ dlc that te Bil, ae preserdy inf, would not authorise surrender seapect of conduct predating the coming ino fre ofthe propoced eialeion (Ground 2. 58. Batedin, and the procedures lending up to I engage - and engende: sndngemen ino —furvdamental sights enbsined inthe BL and HKBOR, For cae 7ai6 ites eg pe he/she,‘example, a4 shown below, deletion prior to snd ithe course of renal feta iverty eights; removal fie Mong Kong fects the feeder to tavel in, Irom aed to Hong Kang, and the ight t private and amily le ti & fundamen constittona eqinerent that any measure infnging rights be pressed by law. The Bl ask to conde upon the Chie Executive athority (o exter into « opecal surrender arrangement, and swe a certifies commencnsurender proceedings, without spusting any citer govern he enerciz ofthat discretion. Th Courts ahed to daca that (2a decision to commence exaition proceedings engages fandamental igh a (the eres of that diction mast be preseibed by ew (Ground 3) ‘The sexnd ground jsying a pr-enactment ling inthis cate is hat he lfc of she Bal may be inunedins and terrible and give rie to eubtatal damage oF rsjadlce: G:._ The groundscf review contend dnerala hat the messures propoded in he Bll sce umconatiutioal ingofs a8 they would authorise deterson and other lnvoade ten fundacental rights. 1 tbe Bl senate, thowe to wham i ‘applied wil alot cerinly be detsined without prior notice * Moreover ander the FOO, bili aviabie oly where “special roumtance are shown {ove eter 106). the Applic iscaectinhls contention thatthe poposed ‘amendevents to the POO are indeed snconstintionsl, abtent the Coutt entertaining «preemptive challenge, Biwe affected by irwillretowllerthe ey segment oftheir igh in ame ae x precondition tong able i vindicate those ght in Cour, (62, The Bil once enacted, would hang overthowitaffects ike cloud. The specs ‘of immedatedotentlon if he Bl enacted nts prevent for aid thereafer poesbly oven extradition to Macna to serve marieitiy wnju seniznee as Competed the Apylicant fo ele biel an Hong Kong ex typotie tbe “Applicat income in Ms conteion tat the Bao is extzaditon under ‘would te uneonstitons,& ie sight end just that the Court should 2 ‘ngaph 7a) of iu LagCo Be dey connate srt of prone under the popored patente orate 5 pronounce that without the AppBant having to ssfer eke detention or continued eile, {__FACTUALBACKGROUND m0, a ‘Te Applicant is Hang Kong pemunentesident and busines ‘iaNay 212 the Applicant was chazged ia Mace, with active commption nd Boney Iundering, Te ellegations elle othe Applicants supposed bey of prominent Mace publi ficial in connection with tender for certain plo of and opposite “Mace Tnvestonal Alport in o ound 205. The Applicant has consent and ‘enphutially denied the charges in this erty. These sme allegations ad eet svete by the Heng Kong independent Comision Ant Comptin, wich following the concksion of ts vestigation hn decided tht no ston against the Applicant wae appropriate Cininal proceedings took plac in Maca betwen late 2012 and March 206, The ‘Applicant was involtarly abet forte ntti de tos ver esos i ath Aetowing ape mica advice that he wae unfit to travel. Fisconiion wou any even ave endared Mim arable panicpae effi is own al _ Te sertoumes ofthe Applicants cordon and bis nab to send and participate {a his own ra were accepted by the Macau Corina Court st Instance On 37 ‘Jomo 2015, the wi jge stated ttt not eneeaonabe for Me. La toe sent view of his medical conditions, Nobwittanding the Courts acceptance that the ‘Applicant’ absence was juste fr proper mdicl aro proceeded to conduct she ere ia nd to ender verdict eben. “The Applicant was represented at al by Maca awyers ding the bar they oe 12 defend the Appian in the imporsble ceeumstances. Tn aaon o proceeding hen, he til was mace by futher prions procdaraliegulaites (etal ‘below at parageaph 77) that endored. he tril incompathle wih femationeiy mandated standards of aime. On 14 Maxch 2015, the Applicat was convicted # rent of bot lfences in the Criminal Court of it atnce and esse to vt {yoersand Cee monte lxpicrment. The Applicant appeted The Courtof Second Instance upheld the conviction and sentence (hoding that it fo was bound by the